The current science (and our references)

---

The following are reviews of the scientific literature (and responses to those reviews).  In order to counterbalance our clear bias towards studies that show the risks of RF radiation, we have included largely **critical** reviews (particularly by scientists with ties to telecom industries or to the FCC or the  ICNIRP . WHile these reviews largely note the  poor quality of many RF studies (and thus, conclude that "more research is needed"), telecoms industry reps are using these studies to suggest that there is "no evidence of harm." 

Before reading these reviews, it is helpful to recognize the following factors that explain why there are so many studies that do not show a risk of harm (for whatever parameter being tested): 

• Risks of harm are likely frequency- and physiology- specific, meaning researchers are essentially searching for a needle in a haystack.  Many of the biological responses to RF are frequency dependent (Pakhomov et al 1997, Markovà et al 2005, Sarimov et al. 2004) and also “dependen[t] on several genetic, physiological, and physical variables” (Belyaev et al 2000). This variation in biological response likely helps explain why there are an undeniably significant number of well-designed studies that do not show health risks of RF (on a specific aspect of health and at a certain frequency/power density/modulation). 
• Funding biases results. RF studies that were funded entirely by telecommunications companies (“industry-funded”) were two and a half times less likely to find a “health effect of wireless radiation” (Huss et al 2007). RF studies (specifically those focused on for mmWaves) that were funded entirely by telecommunications companies (“industry-funded”) were one and a half times less likely to find a “health effect of wireless radiation”.(McCredden et al 2023).
• The methods for studying these dynamics are relatively new.    According to Foster, Ziskin, and Balzano (2022), there are “major uncertainties in dosimetric modeling/exposure assessment” that are “likely to be related to the inherent variability in real-world exposures.” These authors call for “raising the quality of dosimetry in many RF bioeffects studies” and also advocate for “developing improved exposure/dosimetric techniques for the higher microwave frequencies to be used by forthcoming communications technologies” (Foster, Ziskin & Balzano 2022).